Originally Posted by Akasya View Post
So DA , a statement by an alleged victim is evidence ?

Yes, of course it is. When someone makes a complaint that he/she has been assaulted, the police interview the victim, issue a crime number and carry out a preliminary investigation that may include an examination by a police doctor. A full statement is then taken and this then becomes primary evidence that will form the basis of any prosecution at a trial. Without this evidence, there could be no trial. It is then up to the police to carry out further reasonable investigations that may corroborate or even cast doubt on the complaint. If I am wrong about that, then please reference sources.

So anyone ever accused of any offence is automatically guilty , because the complainant said so ?

No. After taking a statement from the victim, and other preliminaries, the police will take a initial view as to whether there is a PRIMA FACIE case to be answered. Guilt or innocence in the alleged crime can only be established in a court of law.

I wonder why we have statements , witnesses , and the need for corroboration ?

Correct. See above.

So no need for courts . lawyers , judges ?

You are just being silly again. No one has ever suggested any such thing (although you would like them to).

You live in some dystopian Judge Dredd , final fantasy universe , unlike Topsy , the world does not revolve around " 'cos i said it it's true "

Your imagination is getting the better of you. Try and calm down a little.
This matter must be tested in a criminal court. By not doing so, the authorities have opened themselves up to all sorts of allegations that could have been avoided. Faith in the system continues to be shaken.

Because some anonymous poster on a turkish forum says it's true ?

What I am saying is that even on the evidence the police has collected so far (there maybe issues about that too), bearing in mind the Evans and the Pearson case previously mentioned, it is far in excess that is required for this matter to proceed to court.

You know nothing of the case , only that published by right wing agitprop groups out to destabilise communities with their lies.

I have never claimed to be au fait with all the evidence and it would be stupid for anyone outside of the police or CPS to claim that. What I am saying, is by just basing the case on what the victim has said and her obvious injuries sustained, this matter should be prosecuted with the full weight of the law. It has not nothing to do with identities of the perpetrators- as I have said previously, they could be yellow with pink polka dots for all I care. Are you suggesting this case should not be proceeded with because it will destabilise the community, even if the evidence is overwhelming?

Where once again please , is the corroborated evidence.

I am not a policeman investigating the case. However, numerous cases have proceeded to trial without corroborated evidence, such as the Evans and Pearson cases, as you well know.

You know DA , presentable , provable facts to put before a judge and jury ?

As I have demonstrated above, there has to be ample evidence for case to come to trial. If, the suspects are acquitted after trial, then the police must continue with their investigations to track down further suspects. My one and only objective is that Chelsey Wright receives the justice she so clearly deserves.

Where is the evidential list , not some interlocutory statement from a person whom the authorities publicly judge as being unable to substantiate her claims.

As I have said above, substantiation would be preferable before the case proceeded to trial, but even if there wasn't, the matter should still proceed and tested in front of judge and jury.

Steve

So DA you have nothing evidential to substantiate your position other than...

Uncorroborated allegations ?

You state " As I have said above, substantiation would be preferable before the case proceeded to trial, but even if there wasn't, the matter should still proceed and tested in front of judge and jury "

Therefore according to you , uncorroborated but investigated allegations put before the CPS should automatically result in a trial ?

Are you for real.

So no need for the CPS , just bang em up and hope ?

Yours is the most ridiculous position any has evere attempted to postulate.

Therefore according to you , uncorroborated but investigated allegations put before the CPS should automatically result in a trial ?

Are you for real.

As I will clearly demonstrate below, I most certainly am for real and I regret your puerile and idiotic attempt to discredit me on a public forum. This is basic stuff you ought to have learned at school. For confirmation of what I say, either phone your local soclicitor or even the CAB because clearly you are incapable of finding relevant information on the internet and accepting the written word.

So no need for the CPS , just bang em up and hope ?

If you read carefully what I have said (and again your ignorance clearly demonstrates you have not) I have never said nor suggested, there was no need for the CPS. Again, If I am wrong about that, I CHALLENGE you to provide the posting where you claim I did.

Yours is the most ridiculous position any has evere attempted to postulate.

Do you have to work at these childish postings, or does it just come naturally? Please, please, take some 3rd party advice on this, since you are not listening to me and clearly you need help.

This policy statement explains the way we, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), deal with cases in which an allegation of rape has been made. It gives advice on what the CPS does, how rape cases are prosecuted, and what victims can expect from the CPS. The document is particularly designed for those who support victims of rape, whether professionally or personally, although it may be of interest to victims, witnesses and the general public.

5 - Is there enough evidence to prosecute?

Rape usually takes place in a private setting where the victim is the only witness. Unless the defendant pleads guilty, the victim will almost certainly have to give evidence in court. Where there is conflicting evidence, the prosecutor has a duty to assess the credibility and reliability of the victim's evidence. This will always be done in a careful and sensitive way, using all the information provided to the prosecutor. A case may not proceed, not because the prosecution does not believe the victim, but because, when considering all the available evidence in the case, there is not enough to meet the evidential stage of the Code test.

The police will always look for corroboration or supporting evidence (such as medical or scientific evidence, CCTV evidence, or eyewitnesses to events prior to or after the incident) but it is not essential and a prosecution can still go ahead without it. However, the prosecution must always prove the defendant's guilt. Cases may fail because a jury cannot decide between what the victim says and what the defendant says. This is why it is essential to obtain all possible forensic and scientific evidence as soon as possible. The earlier a rape is reported, the higher the chance of this being done, and the higher the chance of building a strong prosecution case.

For the sake of repeating myself YET AGAIN, I cite the cases of Ched Evans and Mark Pearson where there was NO, I repeat NO corroborating evidence. In the case of Ched Evans, as you indeed know, the woman involved DID NOT EVEN CLAIM THAT SHE WAS RAPED

This policy statement explains the way we, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), deal with cases in which an allegation of rape has been made. It gives advice on what the CPS does, how rape cases are prosecuted, and what victims can expect from the CPS. The document is particularly designed for those who support victims of rape, whether professionally or personally, although it may be of interest to victims, witnesses and the general public.

5 - Is there enough evidence to prosecute?

Rape usually takes place in a private setting where the victim is the only witness. Unless the defendant pleads guilty, the victim will almost certainly have to give evidence in court. Where there is conflicting evidence, the prosecutor has a duty to assess the credibility and reliability of the victim's evidence. This will always be done in a careful and sensitive way, using all the information provided to the prosecutor. A case may not proceed, not because the prosecution does not believe the victim, but because, when considering all the available evidence in the case, there is not enough to meet the evidential stage of the Code test.

The police will always look for corroboration or supporting evidence (such as medical or scientific evidence, CCTV evidence, or eyewitnesses to events prior to or after the incident) but it is not essential and a prosecution can still go ahead without it. However, the prosecution must always prove the defendant's guilt. Cases may fail because a jury cannot decide between what the victim says and what the defendant says. This is why it is essential to obtain all possible forensic and scientific evidence as soon as possible. The earlier a rape is reported, the higher the chance of this being done, and the higher the chance of building a strong prosecution case.

For the sake of repeating myself YET AGAIN, I cite the cases of Ched Evans and Mark Pearson where there was NO, I repeat NO corroborating evidence. In the case of Ched Evans, as you indeed know, the woman involved DID NOT EVEN CLAIM THAT SHE WAS RAPED

I can understand your need, in this case, to be proven right hence the links. As you have been proven wrong in so many other posts. In them you have tried the use of lies, labels, and misleading video's .To malign , mislead posters and viewers ...

Your supercilious manner in giving an answer belays the fact, you don't have clue most of the time.

Even when caught out in lies you don't have the courage to rectify or admit.

This is a child grooming thread so wonder why you presented this case as the alleged victim was not groomed nor a child....

So can only surmise your presenting of her case and the tenuous link was like your ex EDL leaders, to politicize the thread with your disgusting ultra-right views on color/migrant or faith to, make it another "us" and "them" situation confirmed by the use of a known racist and convicted abuser Robinson videos now used several times.

Don't kid the viewers of your post your defending the alleged victim she is just a vehicle, unfortunately, to peddle your ultra-right views ...

Even trying to draw support from people who have a real genuine concern for child pedophile from whatever quarter or way of life YES .. child grooming gangs but also online, entertainment, sex tourism, politicians, priesthood/orphanage, football etc

And portraying people that can see through your supposed pious, moral, high grounded , empty platitudes of Quote " I don't give a flying fig as to who and what the perpetrators are or what the look like. They can be yellow with pink polka dots for all I care "...... It's all dog, whistle bigotry, and you lie you do have a problem with the "who" and the "what" ... the people who see through it, you portray or call them defenders of pedophiles all because they don't follow your narrow agenda ridden view.

Last edited by bal canavar; 20th May 2017 at 21:39..

The Following User Says Thank You to bal canavar For This Useful Post:

For those sayıng that uk has plenty of pedophıles of theır own well yes they do but the polıce seem to have no trouble arrestıng those.Consıderıng that muslıms are 4 percent of the populatıon ıts astoundıng that so many muslıms are ın chıld groomıng gangs.They have not only raped theır vıctıms but tortured them too---one lıttle gırl had an M for mohammed branded on her behınd and another had her tongue naıled to a table,.For those sayıng that the groomıng and rapes of young gırls has no relıgıous connectıon well under sharıa law a gırl ıs ready for sex as soon as she starts menstruatıng.

Yes..... call the abuse of a colored nurse calling her an "ape", by Chelsey's brother whilst she was helping with his drug overdose as simply idiotic. Instead of what it was racial abuse. Then again with your views, it may be the norm.

Please show the post it was said by anyone Chelsey Wright was to be disbelieved because of her brother Or is it another one of your free flowing lies.

WHAT??? sort of perverted twisted logic is this???

You up-voted Janet Clarke's posting #640 where Chelsey Wright's brother was brought into the discussion, for no other reason than to try and discredit and assassinate the character of Chelsey Wright.

QUOTE: "Chelsey Wright's brother. One of the organisers of the protest march."

This was accompanied by a rather unflattering photo with links to this persons history.

This has nothing to do whatsoever with the actual crime that was committed and was plainly an attempt to deligitimise (on this forum) the merits of the case.

This is from a person who has not even watched the interview of the victim, and who has stated:

QUOTE:"Hopefully lessons have been learnt now never to ignore a child who either complains or is in distress.
That is the hope."

But not adult women, it seems...

Not content with that, you thought you would re-post Janet Clarke's posting, and stated @ #642:

QUOTE: "Janet after reading your link with all his convictions he sounds like not a person you would like to deal with, racially abusing the nurse calling her an ape after her helping him from his overdose. These nurses aren't paid enough it seems to put up with this abuse ."

If your intention was not to try and undermine the credibility of of Chelsey Wright's case, then you can now explain first, your up-voting of the Janet Clarke post, and second, the purpose of your comments above?

AND THEN, you have the barefaced, brass-necked audacity (at the same time insulting everyone's intelligence) to say;

QUOTE: "Please show the post it was said by anyone Chelsey Wright was to be disbelieved because of her brother Or is it another one of your free flowing lies"

This is so inherently absurd, even for you. It is beyond parody.

(Hint- it was you and Janet Clarke who introduced and promoted the issue in the first place)